I know I'm going to get bashed for this but this is exactly the same as federal workers. It's interesting how "promises" for military are "entitlements" for federal workers.
I see nothing wrong with cutting either just as long as they also cut the entitlement programs. We can't spend more than we have.
But they won’t, will they. They never cut entitlements and federal workers have unions. No. They only ask for sacrifices from those who have already given plenty. It’s bulls**t.
We cannot continue on the current course and have a good ending. Though the sequestration hurt, I saw it as the best option.
My hope, though not likely, is that the Senate will ask for significant changes and the House will stand fast causing a shutdown. Which will force the press to admit that the House tried. OK, it is a fairy tale, but I like a good story.
The same?
Military members deploy where the country sends them, at great bodily risk to them and emotional risk to their families. Civilian employees don’t.
Military members pack up and move their families every two to three years.. Civilian employees don’t.
Military members are required to sign a contract for specified numbers of years of service with no option to abrogate that contract, regardless of the perverted social engineering experiments the government foists upon them... Civilian employees don’t.
So no... military retirees and their civil service counterparts are quite different.
Just how many federal workers do you know of who were asked to put their lives on the line in the performance of their duties? You don’t know a damned thing about what it is like to have your ass shot at, willingly I might add, because of a sense of duty and not just a federal paycheck. A pox on your house!
But stripping pay and benefits from those who have already served is, at least, unethical. Congress has done so for at least 50 years. Never have COLA adjustments met inflation. Benefits have diminished year by year.
Trying to start a new occupation at 45 or even get a job at 75 can prove impossible for many without civilian skills.
Allow me to be first in line to bash, HarleyD. You simply are not thinking clearly. The military promises are based on a request for those to step forward who will put their lives, their freedoms, their place of residence, and their opportunity to be with loved ones on the line.
To pretend that the government hasn't entered into extensive research to determine exactly what levels of compensation must be offered to get qualified men and women to volunteer for the military is self blindness to reality.
The offers they have made are real.
Moreover, the excuses of Ryan are incredible deceit. He knows that the government had to increase compensation in the early 2000's to bring military pay up to par with civilian counterparts.
Therefore, any claim that military benefits have grown faster than other areas is totally disingenuous. Of course it has a steeper growth curve. It was intentionally increased to bring it back in line with civilian pay.
The lies of these people are breath-taking.
And your failure to admit that these men and women have been in combat zones for the last 23 years straight is an omission about which you should not be proud.
You ask people to die, then you better not complain about the deal you made to compensate them.
I take it back. This is not a "bash", HarleyD. This is an expression of serious disappointment in you.
I hear you ..... but they are not cutting Entitlements. At all. To the contrary, they are exploding.
This is political cowardice at its worst. They are punishing the people who have fought, bled, and suffered for this nation the most - especially in the last 12 years.
Bad terminology, we served for minimal pay and in return, if we made it to 20+ and retired, then we would see a modest payment, based on some now convoluted formula against one’s basic pay.
But I’ll tell you this, signing a contract with the government is not a promise. It’s a contract...I suspect many of the so called conservatives on this board would argue that contracts don’t mean anything, that they’re just a formal way of making a gentleman’s agreement.
What sucks is that the government has all the cards in their hand...they can break or modify the contract at will whilst the servicemember has absolutely no options to do either. We served based on the premise that the government would uphold their responsibility as outlined in our enlistment contracts.
I have absolutely no problem with SHARING the pain, but this legislation does not do that.
Military only get screwed, again.
Well, there’s another Leftist’s point of view heard.
As if the members of our military get paid top dollar to begin with. They sign up for years at a time. They are at the military’s beck and call 24/7/365. They generally put their personal lives on hold for however long they are in the service.
If they don’t serve in a combat zone, they are all supporting the effort.
Now the going gets tough for the government, and even folks on our side line up to take a swing at the military.
Good Lord, with friends like this...
Compare the retirement portion of the military outlay to the $500 billion plus welfare cost per year. And then come back and aplogize to the men who stand up for you and your family, that you insulted.
Exactly the same as federal workers? Really? Promises = entitlements? Really?
As for your last comment, we spend more than we have all the time. The main reason is because we never back down to the left, and their demand we support their pipe dreams.
The military is one of the few things our federal government is charged with administering. None the less, that’s the first place folks think of cutting.
When welfare has been cut by 75 to 95%, come back and talk to me.